Are Fire Emblem crossovers oversaturated?

[lenticular]

I heard some talk recently about how media crossovers in general are oversaturated to the point where most of them have lost whatever meaning and appeal they might once have had, and that set me off thinking specifically about Fire Emblem crossovers, and how ubiquitous they have grown. In particular, I want to take a dividing line at Awakening.

Here are all the crossovers (broadly construed) that I can think of from before Awakening:

• Anna appearing in most games without any sort of explanation.
• The Whitewings and Camus show up in Gaiden.
• Getting to see art of GBA characters in Path of Radiance if you connect the games with a link cable.
• The original TCG.
• Marth, Roy, and Ike appearing in Smash Bros.
• Occasional easter eggs and references in character names, like Kurthnaga.

I'm deliberately not including direct sequels and prequels here, nor shared world building. There are probably some things that I'm forgetting about or don't know about, but the point is, there weren't really a lot of crossovers here.

Then, from Awakening onwards:

• Awakening is full of DLC characters, spotpass, einherjar, items named after legacy characters, and so on. It's a very crossover-heavy game.
• Fates has a half dozen characters from Awakening plopped in with changed names.
• Shadows of Valentia still has the Whitewings and Camus, but also adds Cipher characters as DLC.
• Engage is even more crossover-heavy than Awakening, with the Emblems, bond rings, the various paralogue maps, etc.
• Heroes. Enough said.
• Cipher.
• Tokyo Mirage Sessions, is a crossover of Fire Emblem with another series (Shin Megami Tensei) and contains a bunch of crossover characters from both Shadow Dragon and Awakening.
• Warriors is similar, crossing FE with Warriors/Musou and also using FE characters from multiple games.
• Three Hopes doesn't really do character crossovers, sticking exclusively with Fódlan, but is still a gameplay crossover.
• Anna is still ubiquitous and has grown even more prominent, now typically being a playable character.
• Fire Emblem characters in other games including: Smash Bros, Code Name STEAM, Warioware, Mario Maker, Dragalia Lost, Project X Zone, Club Nintendo Picross+, probably others that I don't know.
• Most Fire Emblem games having some sort of amiibo compatibility, with unlocks ranging from music to characters.

The least crossover-y game in this time period has been Three Houses, which only really has playable Anna and music unlocks via amiibo. Everything else has had a level of crossover ranging from "fairly substantial" (eg, the Awakening characters in Fates) to "that's the whole point of the game" (eg Heroes).

Personally, I am over it. Admittedly, I'm not really a big fan of crossovers to begin with, so maybe this is just my biases talking, but I just don't care about these any more. I'd be much more excited if the next Fire Emblem game was an entirely new setting with no old characters than I would with yet another crossover game. What do you reckon? Do you also feel crossovered out, or would you still be excited for another chance to see Flora meet Fiora or Ashe fight Ashnard?

[Saint Rubenio]

3 hours ago, lenticular said:

Fire Emblem characters in other games including: Smash Bros, Code Name STEAM, Warioware, Mario Maker, Dragalia Lost, Project X Zone, Club Nintendo Picross+, probably others that I don't know.

This point being in the second section irks me a little, considering FE characters have been appearing in Smash since well before Awakening. Heck, Roy appeared in Smash before he appeared in FE! I also don't think this is really something that affects the series itself. They're unrelated games. Same goes for Heroes, the card games and Warriors. They're just adjacent stuff doing their own thing, there's no harm in their existence. Well maybe Heroes but that's just gacha being gacha

In the mainline games, I guess it's depends on each specific case for me. Camus and the Whitewings feel a tad forced but Valentia is established to be just a ways off of Archanea and they do feel relatively well-integrated into the game's story. The Cipher characters don't feel super out of place in Echoes either, if I didn't know their origins I could've believed they were just created to be DLC for Echoes.

On the other hand is Engage. I enjoy the emblems for the gameplay, but I'll admit I could've done without the vapid fanservice. When I got to the end and they had that really long scene where each emblem said their farewells to Alear, I was seriously tempted to just skip the cutscene. I wanted to say goodbye to the actual characters I'd grown attached to throughout the adventure, not the marketing gimmick!

Then there's Anna. If they're going to keep shoehorning this pointless character as a playable in every game - and I'd much rather they kept bringing Cipher characters back instead, Anna is really boring - at least they should have some fun with her instead of just, "here's the obligatory Anna." Kid Anna from Engage was a step in the right direction, just because she's different even if I would've taken Mitan over her a million times but I digress. Let's do more of that. Elderly Anna, Male Anna, Monster Anna, heck Villainous Anna, why not? Anything but just Anna again, please.

Tl;dr: When they aren't drawing attention to themselves and screaming "DO YOU REMEMBER OLD THING" in my ear, I don't really mind them too much. I would dig more Cipher crossovers - it has some pretty rad characters that could be easily slotted into games and are sadly doomed to obscurity in a now finalized card game. Give them a chance to shine in mainline games as DLC. Or even give them a game! I'd play Valjean's game.

[lenticular]

12 minutes ago, Saint Rubenio said:

This point being in the second section irks me a little, considering FE characters have been appearing in Smash since well before Awakening.

I did have Smash in the first section as well. My point wasn't "this is a new thing that they've started doing", but "this is an old thing that they've continued to do but ramped up". Same as I have both sections including Anna and the Gaiden/Echoes cameos.

[Integrity]

generally, yeah, i think so. i liked warriors quite a lot, but the continued attempts to make anna a Franchise Defining Character have fallen flatter and flatter ever since awakening was supposed to be the franchise's last hurrah and she was kind of an easter egg.

 

franchising sells, though, so what can one do

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, lenticular said:

I heard some talk recently about how media crossovers in general are oversaturated to the point where most of them have lost whatever meaning and appeal they might once have had, and that set me off thinking specifically about Fire Emblem crossovers, and how ubiquitous they have grown. In particular, I want to take a dividing line at Awakening.

Here are all the crossovers (broadly construed) that I can think of from before Awakening:

• Anna appearing in most games without any sort of explanation.
• The Whitewings and Camus show up in Gaiden.
• Getting to see art of GBA characters in Path of Radiance if you connect the games with a link cable.
• The original TCG.
• Marth, Roy, and Ike appearing in Smash Bros.
• Occasional easter eggs and references in character names, like Kurthnaga.

I'm deliberately not including direct sequels and prequels here, nor shared world building. There are probably some things that I'm forgetting about or don't know about, but the point is, there weren't really a lot of crossovers here.

Feels like you're missing here the most significant plot based crossover, that being Naga and Salamander's appearance in Genealogy of the Holy War. Though, maybe you consider that shared world building? But no more than Camus and the Whitewings.

5 hours ago, lenticular said:

Warioware,

This one feels a bit nitpicky. Warioware is made up of games that last about five seconds, and since the start(?) 9-Volt's games have always been Nintendo based cameos. If anything it's a bit strange Fire Emblem didn't have any presence in Warioware before 2013 (if that is true, my experience with Warioware is not Encyclopedic).

 

On topic though, I'm going to go against the grain here and say that, no, Fire Emblem crossovers are not over-saturated. Most of these are harmless cameo appearances, the likes of which Mario and Link, and even Samus, have been making for years. And among the more serious effort crossover stuff, I'm either free to like it, which I often do, or I'm completely free to ignore it because I just don't care about it (literally only know the words Dragalia Lost because of Fire Emblem and I have no inclination to delve any deeper into it than passing knowledge of existence). I feel the only time people really have an argument about crossover stuff intruding onto the main series is Engage. Which is an anniversary title (or at least it was meant to be) so it's hardly surprising. And I like Engage. Sigurd being there and finally learning how you're meant to pronounce Sacae aren't detracting from my enjoyment. In fact, I loved some of the more obscure fanservice stuff they did with Engage. If we got another two games like Engage, then, yeah, it'd be old hat, but I feel like Engage is the only time this stuff has really been front and centre and not just bonus content. I have no Fire Emblem amiibos and I feel no compulsion to buy any to play as Roy or Ike in Echoes (though missing out on some Duma and Mila lore is irritating, but that's more about market practices than crossovers). I would even go as far as to say I'd rather more cameos from mid level important characters in other games in the vein of Camus and the Whitewings. Yes, Fates handled its cameos awfully and has probably ruined the idea for a lot of people, but Fates handled almost everything about its narrative substandardly, it doesn't mean the basic idea of "X character traveling to Y setting" is horrible. It's fun to see a familiar character in a new setting, especially if it's a character you already like. So long as they resist the temptation to shill lords, I would be fully onboard for each new title having one character from the previous title, so long as it makes sense and is integrated well.

Edited May 28 by Jotari

[Zapp Branniglenn]

Kurthnaga feels like a huuuge reach as a "crossover element". Like Saying there are two Fire Emblem Characters named Claude, so Three Houses is clearly a crossover with FE4. Or similarly, saying Lynhardt is a "crossover" of Lyn and Reinhardt even if he has no shared details with either character. They're just names, not references.

If you want more pre-Awakening references though, there's that Toad that says he's playing this hot new game Fire Emblem in The Thousand Year Door (yes it's still there in the remake). And also Kirby Super Star's Great Cave Offensive treasure the Falchion. Technically it was just called "Sword" in the English SNES release, but they renamed it Falchion in the DS remake because that's what it always was in Japanese and Americans knew what Fire Emblem was in 2008

As to the topic question, this was the big one on my mind in 2017-2019. Four Fire Emblem games get announced in early 2017, and only one is a standalone game (though it would be about 18 more months before we got any concrete details on 'Fire Emblem Switch'). I definitely think that lineup of games did its 'damage' for lack of a better word. A lot of Fire Emblem players came into the series at Awakening, and Heroes is the newest nexus point. If Thracia ever gets remade and we're allowed to save and recruit Reinhardt like FE12 lets us do with Michalis, then I'm blaming that on Heroes specifically. When Three Houses released one of my top positive bullet points was that it was cool to be playing a new story, with new characters, and a new setting not tied to anything. And I can't even say that anymore with that Warriors Remake. I've literally had people say I didn't understand the plot of Three Houses, because I failed to Play Three Hopes and experience its rewrites. It's asinine. The crossovers have broken our brain

Edited May 28 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

I'm totally fine with Fire Emblem characters appearing in crossovers outside of the main series, such as Smash or Codename: Steam. The fact that Marth shares a game with Abraham Lincoln will never not be funny. And I'm not opposed to more Warriors, nor to Heroes... doing its thing... far away from me.

When it comes to mainline games, though, I'm not especially a fan. Archanea and Valentia being an ocean apart is... acceptable. But when it comes to Dragon's Gates and Deeprealms having a story function... please no. I don't need L'Arachel, Joshua, and Tana to "quantum tunnel" their way into the eventual FE4 remake. Let each continent be its own self-contained setting.

7 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

I've literally had people say I didn't understand the plot of Three Houses, because I failed to Play Three Hopes and experience its rewrites. It's asinine. The crossovers have broken our brain

There's an interesting question of "canonicity" here. Like, suppose Hopes confirmed that Ignatz had a pet rabbit growing up. Is this detail also canon to Houses, since it was set before any plausible "canon divergence"? Likewise, if Houses says that Annette has a peanut allergy, but it's never mentioned in Hopes, then is it canon to the latter entry, or just the former? To what extent are these the same characters, and to what extent different?

[lenticular]

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

This one feels a bit nitpicky.

16 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

Kurthnaga feels like a huuuge reach as a "crossover element".

Yes. My intention was to try to construe "crossover" as broadly as I could. Something along the lines of "here is a list of things; you choose which of them you think are significant". I'm certainly not trying to claim that all items on the list are equivalent.

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

Feels like you're missing here the most significant plot based crossover, that being Naga and Salamander's appearance in Genealogy of the Holy War. Though, maybe you consider that shared world building? But no more than Camus and the Whitewings.

Yeah, I probably should have included them. I could vaguely claim that they are just shared worldbuilding, but the truth is that I've never played the Jugdral games, so I missed them.

18 hours ago, Jotari said:

And among the more serious effort crossover stuff, I'm either free to like it, which I often do, or I'm completely free to ignore it because I just don't care about it

That's a fair point, and I partially agree with it, but only partially. Some things are easy enough to ignore, others less so. If I don't like Heroes (I don't) then I can easily just not play it. Simple. But if I don't like seeing a bunch of Awakening characters show up in Fates (I don't) then they're much more difficult to ignore. Sure, I can just not use the characters, but they're still prominent enough that I'm going to be at least a bit exposed to them (and I wouldn't want to do Conquest ch. 10 down a unit anyway). Similarly, while I can ignore all the spotpass and DLC stuff in Awakening, I'm still probably going to stumble across Micaiah's Pyre or Ephraim's Lance or something whether I want to or not. Similarly in Three Houses if I stumble across Gradivus or Mercurius (oops, forgot that one in my original list). It's not as if this sort of thing is a huge issue, but it is just a little bit of unavoidable friction that slightly lessens my overall enjoyment.

Or consider the post-game stuff from Shadows of Valentia (which is another one I forgot about on my original list). I can and did completely ignore that and doing so didn't harm my enjoyment of the rest of the game... but it is still a part of the game that I had paid for and didn't get any value from. If it hadn't existed then we might have got a postgame that meaningful continued the story of the game itself, or the deelopment time might have gone to expanding and improving some of the main game.

18 hours ago, Jotari said:

I would even go as far as to say I'd rather more cameos from mid level important characters in other games in the vein of Camus and the Whitewings. Yes, Fates handled its cameos awfully and has probably ruined the idea for a lot of people, but Fates handled almost everything about its narrative substandardly, it doesn't mean the basic idea of "X character traveling to Y setting" is horrible. It's fun to see a familiar character in a new setting, especially if it's a character you already like. So long as they resist the temptation to shill lords, I would be fully onboard for each new title having one character from the previous title, so long as it makes sense and is integrated well.

For me, this mainly depends on the settings of the games, whether they're in the same world, etc. I'd have no problem with -- for instance -- Leonie and Shamir showing up in a hypothetical Morfis game or Naesala and Leanne showing up in a hypothetical Hatary game. But if the next game was in a brand new setting on a new world with new creation myths but Panette and Pandreo show up there, then I wouldn't like that.

20 hours ago, Saint Rubenio said:

Then there's Anna. If they're going to keep shoehorning this pointless character as a playable in every game - and I'd much rather they kept bringing Cipher characters back instead, Anna is really boring - at least they should have some fun with her instead of just, "here's the obligatory Anna." Kid Anna from Engage was a step in the right direction, just because she's different even if I would've taken Mitan over her a million times but I digress. Let's do more of that. Elderly Anna, Male Anna, Monster Anna, heck Villainous Anna, why not? Anything but just Anna again, please.

I agree with this. I dislike Engage Anna less than I dislike any of the other playable Annas.

17 hours ago, Zapp Branniglenn said:

And I can't even say that anymore with that Warriors Remake. I've literally had people say I didn't understand the plot of Three Houses, because I failed to Play Three Hopes and experience its rewrites. It's asinine. The crossovers have broken our brain

Yeah, I've seen that sort of attitude too, and I also completely disagree with it.

10 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

There's an interesting question of "canonicity" here. Like, suppose Hopes confirmed that Ignatz had a pet rabbit growing up. Is this detail also canon to Houses, since it was set before any plausible "canon divergence"? Likewise, if Houses says that Annette has a peanut allergy, but it's never mentioned in Hopes, then is it canon to the latter entry, or just the former? To what extent are these the same characters, and to what extent different?

I find canonicity to be a largely meaningless concept because it's always subject to change. One day, a bunch of Star Wars expanded universe works are considered canon; the next day, Disney decides that they're now all getting shunted over to be "Star Wars Legends" and aren't canon any more. So what? This isn't going to change how I feel about Knights of the Old Republic or the Thrawn trilogy, or anything else. They aren't better or worse as artistic works just because they are or aren't canon.

And the same is true for Fire Emblem. Let's imagine that someone at IS comes up with a cool idea for a Three Houses sequel, but that it completely contradicts Three Hopes. Do we really believe that they'd let that stop them from making this new game that they were excited about and thought would sell well? Or do we think they'd go ahead and make it anyway and explain that Three Hopes was just a hypothetical what-if side story? Or likewise, if their idea does absolutely rely on some plot element from Three Hopes, do we believe that they wouldn't be quick to declare that Hopes is completely canonical?

Canon mostly means "the version of the story that we're continuing to sell you going forward". And that can have some value to it. it's useful to know which version of The Hobbit has the best continuity with Lord of the Rings, for instance. But I generally think that it's a concept that fandoms as a whole tend to give far more importance than it actually deserves.

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, lenticular said:

I'm still probably going to stumble across Micaiah's Pyre or Ephraim's Lance or something whether I want to or not. Similarly in Three Houses if I stumble across Gradivus or Mercurius (oops, forgot that one in my original list). It's not as if this sort of thing is a huge issue, but it is just a little bit of unavoidable friction that slightly lessens my overall enjoyment.

Funny thing about Micaiah's Pyre is that it is completely original to Awakening. Micaiah couldn't use and had no association with Fire Magic in Radiant Dawn. Ditto for Celica's Wind, though at least she can learn Excalibur. Speaking of Excalibur, if we're counting Gradivus in Three Houses, then Excalibur and Aura have been showing up everywhere from the start.

5 hours ago, lenticular said:

For me, this mainly depends on the settings of the games, whether they're in the same world, etc. I'd have no problem with -- for instance -- Leonie and Shamir showing up in a hypothetical Morfis game or Naesala and Leanne showing up in a hypothetical Hatary game. But if the next game was in a brand new setting on a new world with new creation myths but Panette and Pandreo show up there, then I wouldn't like that.

Well, that would be my qualifier of "actually be integrated well."

[Use the Falchion]

Personally, no, I don't think they're oversaturated. There will be times when it's high and times when it's low, and that's fine IMO. Crossovers with other franchises mean that FE has brand-recognition and a chance to reach a new audience. While I too wish it wasn't always the same few characters*, there's a very good reason why that's the case. 

Even then, it's mostly my own annoyance with Marth's propped-up importance. It's like Power Rangers fans getting annoyed that Mighty Morphin' is the only series that gets movies, reboots, or comics, or how Red/Blue/Yellow are the most likely Pokemon games to be remade or have spinoffs for the peripheral audience.  

I love crossovers. I love them in comics, in television, and in movies.* I love crossovers in books, games, and even music! From fanservice crossovers like FE Warriors to narrative and in-game reasons like Engage, I love the crossovers. 

What I could do with is more variety on types of crossovers and characters, to be honest. While having Person A transported into the world of Person B is all well and good, and I do enjoy those, I also like stories where we have Incarnations of characters, such as with Rhajat/Tharja, Asugi/Gaius, and Caeldori/Cordelia. Even if they kept the same name and broad strokes of their backstory, I think having them be native to the new world could be a fun way to examine the character.**

Engage honestly did a pretty good job with giving us a new way to look at crossovers, with the Emblems effectively being ghosts or AI rather than the actual characters themselves. 

So yeah, I'm loving all of these crossovers and explorations into different franchises and gameplay styles over the past 10-12 years or so, and I look forward to new horizons in the future!

 

*Granted, there's a fine line between doing a crossover for the sake of a crossover and it being organic in the plot. There's no wrong side of the line, but doing one for the reason of the other can ruin the crossover, IMO. For comics, as much as I like the annual crossovers from my childhood, even I can see that nowadays they're far too overdone to be impactful.

For television, I loved with the CWTV DC shows had smaller crossovers as much as I loved the larger ones. Felicity Smoak showing up for an episode of The Flash was just as exciting as the annual crossovers down the line, because they helped create a sense of connectivity. The same is true for the Disney Era of Power Rangers, growing up. The annual crossovers with previous seasons were so much fun, and while they didn't add anything to the plot. 

 

**Imagine how fun it'd be to see someone like Chrom and Lucina in Three Houses. Chrom could be a Knight of Seiros from a fallen House who has a Crest, while Lissa has no Crest but attends the Academy due to her brother being a Knight. Chrom's squad (either as an enemy or an ally before he's recruited) could be based on the Shepherds, and it'd be so fun to see. On the flip side, Lucina feels like a perfect fit for a standard "Character A goes to the land of Character B" story. It'd be pretty simple to make, also - just have her be looking for a way to bring "someone dear to her" (leaving it ambiguous as to whether or not it's a friend, family, or partner) back. Seiros wants to control the narrative around the Exalt Brand (aka a "new Crest") and Lucina needs resources, so the two work together. And now imagine Lucina facing down yet another alternate version of her father, but now as a young woman who has slain her demons, both literally and metaphorically. (Alternatively, this version of Lucina could replace the version of Chrom from above, and just be a noble who has fallen on rough times and is trying to prevent something she foresaw.)

Edited May 30 by Use the Falchion

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

While I too wish it wasn't always the same few characters*

While I am also a defender of crossovers, I do agree with this statement. I don't want the extent of Fire Emblem's crossover to be just Marth, Roy, Ike, Lyn and Corrin. That's why I'm so emphatic that if we get more stuff like White Wings-Camus/Awakening Kids it be non lord's exclusive.

2 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

I also like stories where we have Incarnations of characters, such as with Rhajat/Tharja, Asugi/Gaius, and Caeldori/Cordelia. Even if they kept the same name and broad strokes of their backstory, I think having them be native to the new world could be a fun way to examine the character.

This I largely disagree with for playable characters. Rhajat, Asugi and Caeldori did nothing for me as clone characters, and, in fact, I think it actively detracted from Asugi as a character. Chom or Lucina being in Three Houses wouldn't be the same characters. They would have different lived experiences because of the different context, and trying to give them an identical personality despite that would just limit the creative freedom. Unless you just throw all that out the window and essentially have a different character with the same design.

That being said, I had a qualifier. I'm fine with NPCs like Anna and Aimee/Larabel. I would also actively like to see it more with minor bosses. Popular minor bosses showing up in different worlds having different spins on the same jokes or characterization would be unintrusive and probably more entertaining than another generic forgettable boss (much as I love generic forgetting bosses). We've had that for quite a few years now with the Bandit Twins, though they have slowly morphed over time losing both their original design and their original personalities (I'd even be fine with them keeping the same name throughout appearances which the Bandit twins didn't, just so they're easier to talk about).

[Mizerous]

I remember when SMT x FE was first shown. All the hype about an SMT game with a FE setting or vise versa. Instead we get idols...very disappointing.

[Use the Falchion]

On 5/30/2024 at 5:17 PM, Jotari said:

Chom or Lucina being in Three Houses wouldn't be the same characters. They would have different lived experiences because of the different context, and trying to give them an identical personality despite that would just limit the creative freedom. Unless you just throw all that out the window and essentially have a different character with the same design.

Eh, I think it becomes a "nature vs nurture" thing. Think of Superman: Red Son. The Kal-El from that story has a WILDLY different backstory, but ultimately is the same goodhearted character that people know and love. The same is true for that one animated version where Superman is the son of Zod and raised by illegal immigrants. (And Batman is a vampire.) The same can potentially be said for DCAU Justice Lord Superman as well. All three have a core desire to help people and have similar core motivations, but feel radically different due to the worlds they live in and the stories told. The same can be true for any Incarnation IMO. An Incarnation of Chrom and Lissa in Fodlan would feel similar on the surface and could (and probably would) have a lot of similarities with their Awakening counterparts, but the stories told in Fodlan are different, as is the world. As such, the characters would end up in different places with different outcomes. (The easiest example would be that Chrom wouldn't even be king or Exalt in this version, and thus his character arc would be very different.) 

 

On 5/30/2024 at 5:17 PM, Jotari said:

Rhajat, Asugi and Caeldori did nothing for me as clone characters, and, in fact, I think it actively detracted from Asugi as a character. Chom or Lucina being in Three Houses wouldn't be the same characters. They would have different lived experiences because of the different context, and trying

And that's fine! As seen above, I disagree. Asugi was different enough from Gaius that it didn't bother me that they looked the same. It was a fun Easter-egg. Caeldori looks and acts like Cordelia, but her supports with her parents reveal that she's more like Subaki than her previous incarnation. (In that she's actually not a genius but works hard to appear like one.) Rhajat could have used a little (okay, a lot) more separation from Tharja, but given Tharja's popularity, she makes sense. 

 

On 5/30/2024 at 5:17 PM, Jotari said:

That being said, I had a qualifier. I'm fine with NPCs like Anna and Aimee/Larabel. I would also actively like to see it more with minor bosses. Popular minor bosses showing up in different worlds having different spins on the same jokes or characterization would be unintrusive and probably more entertaining than another generic forgettable boss (much as I love generic forgetting bosses). We've had that for quite a few years now with the Bandit Twins, though they have slowly morphed over time losing both their original design and their original personalities (I'd even be fine with them keeping the same name throughout appearances which the Bandit twins didn't, just so they're easier to talk about).

I mean, sure, I guess. This is more of Easter Egg territory, which can be fun, but wouldn't be nearly as fun to me if it came out the way you describe it. To me, this would be similar to how many FE games have bandits as the Chapter 1 enemies and boss. It's something to be expected at this point, for most FE games. I just prefer playable characters crossing over in some way, shape, or form because then we have a chance to explore the differences/similarities or growth between the games they appear in. Just having them show up in cameo roles is...well, it's not bad, but it's certainly doesn't add enough to the idea of a crossover to get me excited. 

 

7 hours ago, Mizerous said:

I remember when SMT x FE was first shown. All the hype about an SMT game with a FE setting or vise versa. Instead we get idols...very disappointing.

Same! I've come to like TMS#FE, and I get that bringing pegasi to Shibuya Crossing was probably impractical in any other way, but I do get disappointed at times. Personally, I'd love if they split the core idea into two - have TMS#FE continue as a sort of Persona-inspired, lighter franchise focused on music and Tokyo and then have a darker, SMT x FE franchise that can push the boundaries (of FE) a little. 

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

Eh, I think it becomes a "nature vs nurture" thing. Think of Superman: Red Son. The Kal-El from that story has a WILDLY different backstory, but ultimately is the same goodhearted character that people know and love. The same is true for that one animated version where Superman is the son of Zod and raised by illegal immigrants. (And Batman is a vampire.) The same can potentially be said for DCAU Justice Lord Superman as well. All three have a core desire to help people and have similar core motivations, but feel radically different due to the worlds they live in and the stories told. The same can be true for any Incarnation IMO. An Incarnation of Chrom and Lissa in Fodlan would feel similar on the surface and could (and probably would) have a lot of similarities with their Awakening counterparts, but the stories told in Fodlan are different, as is the world. As such, the characters would end up in different places with different outcomes. (The easiest example would be that Chrom wouldn't even be king or Exalt in this version, and thus his character arc would be very different.)

But if they're going to be different people, then just make them different characters. Like, Roy and Marth are similar enought hat you could have just made Roy "Marth, but born in a different world". But that wouldn't have really done much to explore the Marth we know, and we'd come out not having Roy.

[Use the Falchion]

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

But if they're going to be different people, then just make them different characters. Like, Roy and Marth are similar enought hat you could have just made Roy "Marth, but born in a different world". But that wouldn't have really done much to explore the Marth we know, and we'd come out not having Roy.

Because the point isn't just to make them different people, but to explore if a person's environment and circumstances turns them into a different person, or if they'll be the same. Or sometimes just see how the things that are different have changed them. The exploration comes from the meta-narrative, from fans recognizing what's going on and talking about it and from the story highlighting the characters and fans being able to see the differences. Superman: Red Son doesn't overtly say "this is an Elseworlds story, and somewhere out there in the Multiverse, Superman may have been raised in America," it asks on specific occasions "I wonder what Superman would have been like had he been raised elsewhere." There's a key difference between the two, slight as it may feel. 

That's something older games couldn't do anyways, due to technology restraints, so bringing that up for Marth and Roy is moot IMO. 

[Jotari]

12 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

Because the point isn't just to make them different people, but to explore if a person's environment and circumstances turns them into a different person, or if they'll be the same. Or sometimes just see how the things that are different have changed them. The exploration comes from the meta-narrative, from fans recognizing what's going on and talking about it and from the story highlighting the characters and fans being able to see the differences. Superman: Red Son doesn't overtly say "this is an Elseworlds story, and somewhere out there in the Multiverse, Superman may have been raised in America," it asks on specific occasions "I wonder what Superman would have been like had he been raised elsewhere." There's a key difference between the two, slight as it may feel.

But you're not doing exploring that concept by having a completely different world. Marth being the protagonist of Binding Blade is not Superman being adopted by the Soviet Union. That's more akin to the route splits in Three Houses where we see the same scenario with altered variables. Sticking an established character in a  completely different setting giving them a different life that will, to some extent, influence their personality and story arc is just having a completely different character and retaining the design. There is nothing fundamental about the character being explored in either a meta or sub meta perspective by simply implementing a Fire Emblem character from one setting and giving them a new life in another setting. For something like that to have any actual meaning you'd need to build the story around the character and make it about them.

12 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

That's something older games couldn't do anyways, due to technology restraints, so bringing that up for Marth and Roy is moot IMO. 

Of course it's something that could be done with older technology. Technology has zero impact on taking a fictional character and putting them in another setting. Marth absolutely could have been the protagonist of Binding Blade. It would have been a simple portrait and name change.

Edited June 2 by Jotari

[Use the Falchion]

19 hours ago, Jotari said:

But you're not doing exploring that concept by having a completely different world. Marth being the protagonist of Binding Blade is not Superman being adopted by the Soviet Union. That's more akin to the route splits in Three Houses where we see the same scenario with altered variables.

I still disagree here. Marth, being a relatively minor noble instead of a prince already changes the scope of responsibility. Add in the differences between the two, such as Roy's dad being alive and not having a sibling, and Marth is going to grow up differently. (Another reason why your example doesn't work - Marth and Roy AREN'T the same character. They're similar, but their current situations are too different for Marth to just jump into Roy's shoes, which wasn't even the point. You could make it work, if you focus on the leadership and kingliness of both, but Roy's situation doesn't focus on that from what I've played and from what I can tell.) 

 

19 hours ago, Jotari said:

ticking an established character in a  completely different setting giving them a different life that will, to some extent, influence their personality and story arc is just having a completely different character and retaining the design.

I still massively disagree. It can be that, but it's not exclusively that. The big question in doing so, to me at least, is asking how much is changed between the settings. That's why it's meta and not part of the story. The actual story won't ever really bring this up except in passing or as an Easter Egg, depending on the conversation, because it's not relevant to the story at hand, or at least it shouldn't be. But the character's own choices and journey will tell where the line is drawn. That's the point, to explore those choices and where the differences lie. Or, to use your words in a way, to see if they are a completely different character and just retaining the design, or if they're one and the same. 

 

19 hours ago, Jotari said:

For something like that to have any actual meaning you'd need to build the story around the character and make it about them.

Not really. They'd need to be active participants in the story (i.e. playable characters with dialogue and supports), but they wouldn't need to be main characters at all. In fact, I'd argue it's better if they're not main characters, because if they are, the parallels might distract from the actual story. Notice how in my example for Chrom and Lissa, I never once mentioned them as House Leaders or main characters in any way. I gave him a backstory similar enough to their Awakening backstory and that was really it. I didn't say either of them (or Lucina, for her examples) were replacing Byleth, Claude, Dimitri, Edelgard, or even Rhea. They're just another pair of playable characters that players can compare/contrast with their Awakening counterparts on their own.

Caeldori and Selena's Parent-Child supports are a good example of this. Selena brings up who Caeldori looks like and the directly compares her to Cordelia at times. Players who don't know Cordelia can understand what's happening due to context clues given here (and the ones given in Selena and Subaki's supports) and players who do know Cordelia can enjoy the comparison and contrast between the two Incarnations that happens. But none of it is plot-relevant, and all of it is for the players to enjoy at their own leisure.*

Ultimately, you don't need to build the story around the new incarnation and make it about them, you just need to give them space to explore the differences and a chance for players to see that space. (Back to the Superman example, the story isn't about Batman or Lex Luthor, but you're still given time and space to see them and how they've changed in this new world.)

 

19 hours ago, Jotari said:

Of course it's something that could be done with older technology. Technology has zero impact on taking a fictional character and putting them in another setting.

Let me clarify. Technology has a lot to do with HOW fictional characters can interact with stories. Marth being put in Roy's game wouldn't have been nearly as fleshed out compared to modern games that can try the same things due to the limited supports and the lack of base conversations or dialogue options outside of their joining map and any other characters they may recruit. From the 3DS onwards, with unlimited supports (per character per playthrough, instead of just five), and the increase of base conversations or similarly placed dialogue from PoR onwards, the capability to explore such Incarnations has increased in ways that older technology - or at least gameplay choices - did not allow. 

So yes, you're right, they could have put Marth in Roy's game, but doing so in a way that actually gives players a chance to learn about the similarities and differences between BB-Marth and SD-Marth would be few and far-in-between IMO. 

 

 

*This doesn't mean that you have to have one character "in-the-know," however. Just having someone bring up "what choices would you have made in ABC situation," and the incarnation can say "I'd like to say I'd do 123 (or whatever decision the previous version made), but I'm not so sure I can or would," or something like that. 

[Jotari]

4 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

I still disagree here. Marth, being a relatively minor noble instead of a prince already changes the scope of responsibility. Add in the differences between the two, such as Roy's dad being alive and not having a sibling, and Marth is going to grow up differently. (Another reason why your example doesn't work - Marth and Roy AREN'T the same character. They're similar, but their current situations are too different for Marth to just jump into Roy's shoes, which wasn't even the point. You could make it work, if you focus on the leadership and kingliness of both, but Roy's situation doesn't focus on that from what I've played and from what I can tell.) 

But why would Martha's father be dead if Marth was grew up in a different world without the war that killed his parents? It's not like Martha's personality inherently brings death to his father.

4 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

I still massively disagree. It can be that, but it's not exclusively that. The big question in doing so, to me at least, is asking how much is changed between the settings. That's why it's meta and not part of the story. The actual story won't ever really bring this up except in passing or as an Easter Egg, depending on the conversation, because it's not relevant to the story at hand, or at least it shouldn't be. But the character's own choices and journey will tell where the line is drawn. That's the point, to explore those choices and where the differences lie. Or, to use your words in a way, to see if they are a completely different character and just retaining the design, or if they're one and the same. 

It's not examining how choices are being taken differently. Corrin is examining how different choices (or a different choice singular) leads to different outcomes. But if you've changed the story and setting entirely then there's no parallel choice, it is by definition a completely different setting. Even with how similar Shadow Dragon and Binding Blade are already, there's no meaningfully different things Marth as Roy would be doing compared to Marth as Marth because the scenarios are separate to begin with.

4 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

Not really. They'd need to be active participants in the story (i.e. playable characters with dialogue and supports), but they wouldn't need to be main characters at all. In fact, I'd argue it's better if they're not main characters, because if they are, the parallels might distract from the actual story.

Caeldori and Selena's Parent-Child supports are a good example of this. Selena brings up who Caeldori looks like and the directly compares her to Cordelia at times. Players who don't know Cordelia can understand what's happening due to context clues given here (and the ones given in Selena and Subaki's supports) and players who do know Cordelia can enjoy the comparison and contrast between the two Incarnations that happens. But none of it is plot-relevant, and all of it is for the players to enjoy at their own leisure.*

Ultimately, you don't need to build the story around the new incarnation and make it about them, you just need to give them space to explore the differences and a chance for players to see that space. (Back to the Superman example, the story isn't about Batman or Lex Luthor, but you're still given time and space to see them and how they've changed in this new world.)

You're missing my point. If you do entirely construct the idea around the same character in a different setting then it could work, but only if that's what the story itself is about. If you are bringing up parallels and thematic reflection. But if you just put X character in Y setting then you're not going to get those parallels and thematic reflection because the story hasn't been built for it.

4 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

Let me clarify. Technology has a lot to do with HOW fictional characters can interact with stories. Marth being put in Roy's game wouldn't have been nearly as fleshed out compared to modern games that can try the same things due to the limited supports and the lack of base conversations or dialogue options outside of their joining map and any other characters they may recruit. From the 3DS onwards, with unlimited supports (per character per playthrough, instead of just five), and the increase of base conversations or similarly placed dialogue from PoR onwards, the capability to explore such Incarnations has increased in ways that older technology - or at least gameplay choices - did not allow. 

So yes, you're right, they could have put Marth in Roy's game, but doing so in a way that actually gives players a chance to learn about the similarities and differences between BB-Marth and SD-Marth would be few and far-in-between IMO

All that stuff easily could have been pulled off on the GBA. Probably even the SNES tok if they really cared about it. But that's an entirely different question about characterization overall. You can characterize someone in a small word count, in fact, it's considered better writing to do so. But it's immaterial to the conversation which is about transposing characters into a different setting. Roy's portrait and name being replaced with Martha's would be exactly what you suggest and any mechanical limitations of the NES or SNES is going to be a limitation no matter wether their original or cloned.

4 hours ago, Use the Falchion said:

Notice how in my example for Chrom and Lissa, I never once mentioned them as House Leaders or main characters in any way. I gave him a backstory similar enough to their Awakening backstory and that was really it. I didn't say either of them (or Lucina, for her examples) were replacing Byleth, Claude, Dimitri, Edelgard, or even Rhea. They're just another pair of playable characters that players can compare/contrast with their Awakening counterparts on their own.

Take that image you have of those two character. Fodlan Chrom and Lissa, with he backstory you've imagined. Now change their names and hairstyle. What has been lost? They are still the same characters as you imagine, saying all the same things with all the same backstory and personality, existing in the world with the strength of their character coming from how they function in the world. We can even still compare and contrast their choices to Chrom and Lissa, just like we can contrast the choices of two different characters in the same story or even different stories. Parallels can be drawn between Roy and Marth, Celica and Micaiha, Seliph and Lucina, those contrasts and themes all still exist, but making them the same people doesn't add anything because they're not the same people. It just results in a less favourable meta cast because it would mean characters like Roy and Micaiaiah don't exist because they've just been replaced with the Marth and Celica design. And this doesn't need to be protagonists, I could just as well be talking about Ogma and Dieck and all this stuff would remain true.

 

[Fabulously Olivier]

The answer is no, because Warriors didn't cross over enough.

[Use the Falchion]

On 6/2/2024 at 11:25 PM, Jotari said:

But why would Martha's father be dead if Marth was grew up in a different world without the war that killed his parents? It's not like Martha's personality inherently brings death to his father.

Because that's an inherent part of his story. One of the points is to keep the background as similar as possible to their original world, and then change the journeys they're going on. Hence why, in my Chrom and Lissa example, Chrom has a Crest and Lissa doesn't. 

 

On 6/2/2024 at 11:25 PM, Jotari said:

You can characterize someone in a small word count, in fact, it's considered better writing to do so.

Tell that to the people who are characterized in a small word count and then are called "one-note" or "flat." (Which isn't inherently bad, despite what this fandom and many others think.) Taking your time and giving time to take is the better option for characterization IMO, because it allows for more opportunities for depth and solid characterization. It may not always be taken, but offering it will result in better characterization than smaller word counts. 

 

On 6/2/2024 at 11:25 PM, Jotari said:

Now change their names and hairstyle. What has been lost? They are still the same characters as you imagine, saying all the same things with all the same backstory and personality, existing in the world with the strength of their character coming from how they function in the world.

The meta-comparison. Because now you're doing a shallow "oh they're just another archetype" as opposed to actually looking at their characters and saying "I can see how these choices led them to do 123 thing differently or feel differently about ABC event." 

 

On 6/2/2024 at 11:25 PM, Jotari said:

Parallels can be drawn between Roy and Marth, Celica and Micaiha, Seliph and Lucina, those contrasts and themes all still exist, but making them the same people doesn't add anything because they're not the same people. It just results in a less favourable meta cast because it would mean characters like Roy and Micaiaiah don't exist because they've just been replaced with the Marth and Celica design.

Or now, instead of rehashing the same story with two similar characters, you can add a twist to it by examining how one character would feel about two different stories. Instead of saying "Roy is just a copy of Marth and therfore he's boring," you can say "wow, Marth in this new situation is so much more interesting (or boring, it can work for the character's benefit either way." 

 

On 6/2/2024 at 11:25 PM, Jotari said:

less favourable meta cast because it would mean characters like Roy and Micaiaiah don't exist because they've just been replaced with the Marth and Celica design.

I mean, not really? The meta-cast will almost always be the same because they're the stars of the show. Just like how the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers will always be THE Power Rangers reboots go back to, or how Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne will always be Superman and Batman despite having legacy characters for decades. Giving them Incarnations as playable (but not major) characters in a new game doesn't affect their popularity at all, because they were always going to occupy that spot. They're not giving it up because they aren't the main character, nor are they taking it away because side-characters rarely get that "promoted to the meta-cast" treatment outside of something like Heroes (which said meta-characters are already going to have tons of alts for anyways) or Warriors. (Which they'll already be in because of "main character status," regardless of the Incarnation or not.) 

 

The only thing this changes is the fact we'd be going from "new character who looks and acts exactly like this specific FE archetype but with a new design" to "old character who may look the same but has room to act differently than before and we can explore that." Neither is inherently better than the other IMO, but there's room enough for both, with the latter not being explored nearly as much as I'd prefer. 

 

At the end of the day, we aren't going to agree on this, and that's fine with me. 

 

5 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

The answer is no, because Warriors didn't cross over enough.

Hear hear! 

[Jotari]

15 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

Because that's an inherent part of his story. One of the points is to keep the background as similar as possible to their original world, and then change the journeys they're going on. Hence why, in my Chrom and Lissa example, Chrom has a Crest and Lissa doesn't. 

But if we're maintaining all the parts that are an inherent part of the character then you're not actually exploring any new ground. You're just rehashing the same plot with a different coat of paint.

15 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

Tell that to the people who are characterized in a small word count and then are called "one-note" or "flat." (Which isn't inherently bad, despite what this fandom and many others think.) Taking your time and giving time to take is the better option for characterization IMO, because it allows for more opportunities for depth and solid characterization. It may not always be taken, but offering it will result in better characterization than smaller word counts. 

Characters can get thousands of words dedicated to them and still end up being one note and flat.

15 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

The meta-comparison. Because now you're doing a shallow "oh they're just another archetype" as opposed to actually looking at their characters and saying "I can see how these choices led them to do 123 thing differently or feel differently about ABC event." 

But the difference is absolutely meaningless. If all the dialogue and actions are identical but the names are changed, and your perception is fundamentally altered by a sonple name and hairstyle, then that just shows how hollow the idea ultimately is.

15 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

Or now, instead of rehashing the same story with two similar characters, you can add a twist to it by examining how one character would feel about two different stories. Instead of saying "Roy is just a copy of Marth and therfore he's boring," you can say "wow, Marth in this new situation is so much more interesting (or boring, it can work for the character's benefit either way." 

Roy isn't boring though. Roy is great. And I wouldn't like to live in a universe where Roy didn't exist and we instead had more Marth.

15 minutes ago, Use the Falchion said:

I mean, not really? The meta-cast will almost always be the same because they're the stars of the show. Just like how the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers will always be THE Power Rangers reboots go back to, or how Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne will always be Superman and Batman despite having legacy characters for decades. Giving them Incarnations as playable (but not major) characters in a new game doesn't affect their popularity at all, because they were always going to occupy that spot. They're not giving it up because they aren't the main character, nor are they taking it away because side-characters rarely get that "promoted to the meta-cast" treatment outside of something like Heroes (which said meta-characters are already going to have tons of alts for anyways) or Warriors. (Which they'll already be in because of "main character status," regardless of the Incarnation or not.) 

 

The only thing this changes is the fact we'd be going from "new character who looks and acts exactly like this specific FE archetype but with a new design" to "old character who may look the same but has room to act differently than before and we can explore that." Neither is inherently better than the other IMO, but there's room enough for both, with the latter not being explored nearly as much as I'd prefer. 

 

At the end of the day, we aren't going to agree on this, and that's fine with me. 

No, having Roy is better than having Marth!Roy. Roy gets to be his own character with his own identity, while Marth!Roy is going to be chained to the original and evey action will be scrutinized under that lense coming across as out of character or ignoring what is or isn't fundamental to his story. It's something that detracts from the potential of the Young Lion while providing virtually nothing of substance in its place.

[Samz707]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

But if we're maintaining all the parts that are an inherent part of the character then you're not actually exploring any new ground. You're just rehashing the same plot with a different coat of paint.

Characters can get thousands of words dedicated to them and still end up being one note and flat.

But the difference is absolutely meaningless. If all the dialogue and actions are identical but the names are changed, and your perception is fundamentally altered by a sonple name and hairstyle, then that just shows how hollow the idea ultimately is.

Roy isn't boring though. Roy is great. And I wouldn't like to live in a universe where Roy didn't exist and we instead had more Marth.

No, having Roy is better than having Marth!Roy. Roy gets to be his own character with his own identity, while Marth!Roy is going to be chained to the original and evey action will be scrutinized under that lense coming across as out of character or ignoring what is or isn't fundamental to his story. It's something that detracts from the potential of the Young Lion while providing virtually nothing of substance in its place.

 

I agree with Roy being good. (and FE7 arguably makes him more interesting with the Ninian situation.) 

I think FE is in a weird case of there not really being any interesting (as far as I'm concerned) crossovers outside of occasionally the dialogue in FEH yet there's tons of terrible crossover stuff.

That said I'd probably not really be into any more crossover stuff (outside maybe if they do a Valentia/Archanea crossover thing) since they'd almost certainly include characters I can't stand (even in FEH I ignore the main story completely and skip the story of most events.) since I really hate some of the main characters so they'd likely be included and either A: make up a decent chunk of the writing or B: Have me be forced to use them. 

Edited June 6 by Samz707

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I've thought of a way to recontextualize the question with a litmus tested scenario. Imagine if you will Fire Emblem Heroes, and the first Warriors never happened. But Echoes, Three Houses and its Warriors whatever do come out. No alterations to their content. Does Engage suddenly become a much more compelling game? Because now you've got references to Judgral, Elibe, Tellius. These classic legacy characters given a voice for the very first time. That was a big draw for me with Heroes, so I could see myself having actually bought Engage in this bizarro alternate dimension for the sheer novelty of such a release

Edited June 20 by Zapp Branniglenn

[Dark Holy Elf]

I'm not a particularly fan of crossover elements in otherwise serious games. I think they take me out of the story a bit. I have no problem with e.g. the Whitewings (because the game made their presence in the story believable) but I find dimension-hopping to be pretty goofy at best, and a cynical effort to increase sales at worst. I'm not a fan of the emblems, and was definitely a bit put off by Awakening trio (though I ended up forgiving them because I felt they actually ended up feeling integrated into the Fates cast well, it's still not a choice I would have made). Like others I was pretty happy that the Fodlan games largely stand alone outside of minor references (shared weapon names and the like don't bother me).

Though I will say I have no problem with crossover games being crossovers. Smash Bros. is good fun. Fire Emblem Warriors is good fun. Fire Emblem Heroes is/was good fun... except for the part where it's a gacha game and all the problems that come with that, but I digress. I will readily admit I played both FEW and FEH primarily because it was a chance to see characters I already liked in a new gameplay style - had the games being otherwise identical but featured a cast of characters I did not know, there's only a low chance I'd have played FEW and zero chance I'd have played FEH. Maybe it helps a bit that I'm not playing these games remotely for story in the first place? The plots of these games generally range from non-existent to terrible, but I can deal with that.

On 5/28/2024 at 3:50 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

There's an interesting question of "canonicity" here. Like, suppose Hopes confirmed that Ignatz had a pet rabbit growing up. Is this detail also canon to Houses, since it was set before any plausible "canon divergence"? Likewise, if Houses says that Annette has a peanut allergy, but it's never mentioned in Hopes, then is it canon to the latter entry, or just the former? To what extent are these the same characters, and to what extent different?

Well first of all I suppose I'd ask to what extent does canonicity matter? Is it important whether or not Ignatz has a rabbit, or (to pick an actual example) whether Caspar's father is named Leopold? In many cases the answer is probably not.

That said, I would generally say in the circumstances where it might matter, that a second work about the same characters by the same writer(s) is something I would generally consider to be "canon", and in my experience most people are the same. (It gets a little murkier if different writers are involved.)

If someone asks the question "Does Bilbo Baggins have children?" and I answer with "well, The Hobbit ends when Bilbo is still relatively young, so there's plenty of time for him to have children; my headcanon is he has seven" I think most people would consider that a somewhat eccentric response. Lord of the Rings exists and Bilbo not having any children of his own (and instead adopting Frodo) is a plot point in that story, it's generally understood that questions about Bilbo would concern all his appearances in JRR Tolkien's works, not just one, unless specifically stated otherwise. Having said that, if someone wanted to write a fan sequel to The Hobbit which ignores Lord of the Rings, I certainly think that would be fine! Though they probably would want to state that clearly, or they would likely have numerous confused readers.

To circle back to Houses/Hopes, as someone involved in discussion and editing of fanfiction, I would say that most people consider any details introduced in Hopes to be canon to Houses and vice versa; this is the same setting, and the same characters, with the only difference being the that the timeline branches off in the prologue of both games (which isn't even a new thing; Houses already had timeline branches shortly after that point). Caspar's father is named Leopold; this is about as "factual" as information about a video game character gets, and you'd not be surprised to see it mentioned on any wiki articles written about him. If someone, in 2024, writes a fanwork about Caspar and names his dad Bordncord von Bergliez, most beta editors (certainly including me) would note "FYI, his name is actually Leopold". Now maybe this writer will choose to keep the name Bordncord, but just like giving Bilbo seven biological children, that would be done with the understanding that the majority of their readers would consider this a canon divergence.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

To circle back to Houses/Hopes, as someone involved in discussion and editing of fanfiction, I would say that most people consider any details introduced in Hopes to be canon to Houses and vice versa; this is the same setting, and the same characters, with the only difference being the that the timeline branches off in the prologue of both games (which isn't even a new thing; Houses already had timeline branches shortly after that point). Caspar's father is named Leopold; this is about as "factual" as information about a video game character gets, and you'd not be surprised to see it mentioned on any wiki articles written about him. 

We've argued this point before in the past, and I'm not on the side of "most people". Neither are the lead developers. Repeatedly calling it a "what-if" story. Conceding that's its separate continuity status is extremely similar to Age of Calamity. And concluding that this story "may or may not exist". Whatever version of Fodlan you prefer is up to the player. That's deferring artistic license to the fans right there. They felt a need to make changes to the setting and story because:

Quote

Kusakihara: Personally, I felt that if we were to reincarnate FE Three Houses as a Warriors game, it would be better to give players who had already played the original game something fresh instead of using the same story again.

In conclusion, Caspar's dad's first name MIGHT be Leopold in Three Houses.